A bus passenger is not considered a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act.

Mr. Justice L. Manoharan, President—Appeal 968/1999 is by the opposite parties in O.P. 326/1999 whereas Appeal 969/1999 is by the opposite party in O.P. 284/1999, both these appeals are disposed of by this common order. The aforesaid complaints were also disposed of by the District Forum by a common order. The grievance of the respective complainants was that they had taken tickets for their journey from Guruvayoor to Kozhikkode, on the way there was a breakdown at Kunnamkulam, the journey could not be continued, the opposite parties neither arranged for the onward journey nor paid the balance amount. They alleged the same would constitute deficiency in service and, therefore, wanted redressal. In the version by the opposite parties though they admitted the breakdown, they maintained that the fare was refunded to the passengers and the conductor had made alternate arrangements for the passengers to continue their onward journey, they wanted dismissal of the complaint. By the impugned order the District Forum found deficiency in service and, therefore, made the impugned direction. It is the said direction that is under challenge in this appeal.

2. Learned Counsel for the appellant challenged the findings entered by the District Forum. The main thrust of the argument was to the effect that the complainants are not consumers within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Consequently the complaints were not maintainable before the District Forum. The learned Counsel made reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in Malappuram District P.B.O. Association v. Mohan, in 1999 (2) KLT 898. In para 17 of the said decision the Division Bench of the High Court held “the passenger in a bus is not a consumer for the purpose of Consumer Protection Act; nor the Regional Transport Authority, a statutory functionary under the Motor Vehicles Act, a provider of any service, the quality of which can be complained of by the bus passenger”. A plain reading of the said statement of law by the Division Bench would lead to the conclusion that a bus passenger is not a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act. A faint attempt was made to maintain that the said statement by the Division Bench has to be understood in the context of the question that arose for determination before the High Court. Para 3 of the said decision states that the original petition was filed by the appellant in Writ Appeal No. 1554/1999 against the order in O.P. 33/1992 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Malappuram. It is pointed out that the dispute related to the fixing of fare stage and in such circumstance the said statement in para 17 has to be understood in the said context only. We do not consider that the statement of law in para 17 is capable of an interpretation that the same confines only to the question as to fare stage, for the Division Bench has specifically said that a passenger in the bus is not a consumer for the purpose of Consumer Protection Act. When the statement is so widely couched and that too without any ambiguity whatever this Commission cannot interpreted it to mean that it confines to a particular dispute alone. Applying the said declaration of law as is obtained and found in the said decision, the complainants cannot be said to be consumers within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. Then the complaints are not maintainable and the same are liable to be dismissed. In that view we have to allow the appeals and the decision of the District Forum has to be set aside on the ground of maintainability.

In the result the appeals are allowed as above.

Appeals allowed.